One thing that annoys me about the current blitz to try and somehow convince the Govt to delay the May 17th reopening (which has switched astonishingly rapidly from the theoretical discussions about June12) is the effective presentation that doing so would come with zero downside, from all the hospitality businesses etc that would probably go bust overnight due to all the additional costs they will have incurred preparing specifically for tomorrow.
And most of them are calling for such a delay whilst hedging their bets, saying we might come to regret it ... or we might not. It’s as if they’re all rushing to get their voices heard now, just to give them the excuse in a month to say “I told you so”.
Kit Yates @Kit_Yates_Maths · 4h No one is suggesting we “live like this for ever”, but we have vaccines to prevent this disease. More time to vaccinate people will undoubtedly save lives. Opening up more in the face of a more transmissible variant risks undermining much of our efforts up to now.
A typical view from the indie SAGE.
No appreciation of the economic ruin or the mental health crisis that keeping closed down will deliver. Nor seemingly any appreciation that people have mainly had enough and are meeting anyway in their own homes which are probably not as covid safe (whatever that actually means) than a well run cafe or bar.
I cannot fathom the SAGE maths behind the next wave from an Indian variant that be twice as bad as the last one. Nearly 70% of the population have had one jab, getting on for two in five have had two. That wasn't the case in previous waves with Kent variant for example.
But it is nearer 95%+ of those at risk of hospitalisation. Only 5% remain to be jabbed. So to get to double the numbers when there was no vaccine, it has to be massively more potent than the Covid we have faced before - in that 5% cohort.
There are only two ways to read this:
a) they believe the vaccines don't work
b) they are talking complete and utter bollocks.
Which is it, SAGE? Because frankly, I don't see any scientific basis for the scare of an NHS-smashing next wave.
I'm beginning to suspect that at least some of these models have their assumptions tweaked until they produce the outcomes that the modellers want to see.
The object of the model isn't to attempt an accurate prediction, it's to justify the endless restrictions that the modellers have already decided are necessary.
On schools, they inputted data that suggested mask wearing reduced transmission by 30%.
Which was a little surprising given they had spent the whole autumn telling us there was almost no transmission in schools...
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.
Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.
One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
Immigration is a net wash for average wages because Lump of Labour is in fact a fallacy.
Studies show that immigrants increase GDP in proportion. As immigrants tend to go for jobs they are overqualified for, native workers get more opportunities for permanent or supervisory roles than they would otherwise have.
Presumably as FoM kicks in the reverse will happen. GDP will contract in relative terms but there will be a temporary drag where there is unmet demand before job vacancies also fall to match the relatively lower GDP.
With no disrespect to FF43, if you want one post that neatly encapsulates why Remain lost, this would be one of the top contenders. Looking at things from a theoretical standpoint, and not thinking about the real life effects on people at the bottom of the scale, completely misses the point.
Theories don't vote, people do.
Labour will be sending academics to the Red Wall to explain to their ex voters how they’re suffering from false consciousness
So dull.
It's simple — if Brexit does make these voters lives better, they'll continue voting for Con. If it doesn't, they wont. What "Labour academics" say is immaterial, although we all know you're just looking for a bite.
Voter coalitions are not immutable. It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions.
Yet that’s no guarantee that Labour’s lost voters will then collapse back into its arms. Simply waiting for the latest iteration of the Conservative party to implode might reward Labour, but you’d be a fool to bet on it after the evidence of the last decade.
[Alternatively] the circumstances in which a progressive alliance might make a tangible difference are the circumstances in which Labour is looking like a winner anyway. Which obviously isn’t the case today.
There is no plausible path back to power for Labour that does not involve succeeding in the electoral system as it is by gaining support from diverse groups of voters from around the compass.
Most people in most places want similar things: decent life chances for themselves and their children, reliable public services, a nice place to call home, a sense that opportunities and rewards are distributed fairly and that the communities, country and planet in which they live have a promising future. It should not be impossible for the Labour party to locate a winning electoral coalition. First, though, it needs to start acting as if it is interested in finding one.
"It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions."
The wish is father to the thought.
It has already secured an 80 (now 82) seat majority whilst peeling off its Europhile wing. That disintegration happened before the last election.
The point being made is that there are potential tensions between the Tories’ old and new supporters, which is fair. A similar coalition fell apart during the later Thatcher and Major years.
And I'm saying that the most obvious fault-line in the Conservatives for decades has already fractured - the Europhiles v the Sceptics. From the inside of the party, I can't see anything remotely close to that San Andreas fault. And we have already had our 8.3 Richter Scale event, prior to 2019. There was some swaying, but the edifice proved surprisingly robust.
So what rupture in our ranks is on the horizon?
It’s all about numbers. When a party, any party, is very successful it attracts a diversity of people that are not ideologically coherent as joining it is the best way to achieve advancement. Over time fractures start to appear. Doesn’t require the edifice to collapse but it will weaken it, It’s not unique to your party, similar cracks appeared in the Congress Party in India, are appearing in the ANC, and happened in the Labour Party post 2003 to an extent.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.
Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.
One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
Immigration is a net wash for average wages because Lump of Labour is in fact a fallacy.
Studies show that immigrants increase GDP in proportion. As immigrants tend to go for jobs they are overqualified for, native workers get more opportunities for permanent or supervisory roles than they would otherwise have.
Presumably as FoM kicks in the reverse will happen. GDP will contract in relative terms but there will be a temporary drag where there is unmet demand before job vacancies also fall to match the relatively lower GDP.
With no disrespect to FF43, if you want one post that neatly encapsulates why Remain lost, this would be one of the top contenders. Looking at things from a theoretical standpoint, and not thinking about the real life effects on people at the bottom of the scale, completely misses the point.
Theories don't vote, people do.
Labour will be sending academics to the Red Wall to explain to their ex voters how they’re suffering from false consciousness
Hopefully FF34 is on the job, he can cement the remain victory among the working classes once and for all after they've all been told their actual lives are all a lie becuase some London or New York based academic says so.
Go for it Sunak. Take the heat. It’s the right thing to do.
Personally, I’d go all the way and just tax inheritance as income.
Inheritance tax is iniquitous .....you have been taxed on everything you have earned and then the bastards want you tax you when you are dead.. Fortunately the bastards of which ever Govt it might be won't get a penny of mine.
No, that’s a silly argument, since money circulates and is taxed at multiple points. IHT, in the round, conveys significant social mobility benefits, and the alternative is of course paying more tax when you are alive.
Sounds like Ed Balls an some sort of craptrap like neendogenous growth theory.
I searched google for "David Cameron" from 1/1/2002 to 1/1/2004 and found an article he wrote in the Guardian about Macedonia and an Oxford Mail story about local MP visiting a school. (Also, don't think he was the 18yo student David Cameron who set fire to his friend dressed as a mummy in toilet paper https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/student-set-fire-paper-mummy-2491691 )
I have literally no idea where you're looking, as ...
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
This is a consequence of the end of free movement. Free movement made the supply of labour almost infinitely elastic with the consequence that real wages stagnated and investment in training was disincentivised.
Employers in this country are going to have to get used to the idea of making more of what they have and investing capital where the skills are not there. This is a good thing for most people in poor to moderately paid jobs, for the country in terms of productivity and for the release of pressure on housing and services caused by large scale, low skilled immigration.
One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
Immigration is a net wash for average wages because Lump of Labour is in fact a fallacy.
Studies show that immigrants increase GDP in proportion. As immigrants tend to go for jobs they are overqualified for, native workers get more opportunities for permanent or supervisory roles than they would otherwise have.
Presumably as FoM kicks in the reverse will happen. GDP will contract in relative terms but there will be a temporary drag where there is unmet demand before job vacancies also fall to match the relatively lower GDP.
With no disrespect to FF43, if you want one post that neatly encapsulates why Remain lost, this would be one of the top contenders. Looking at things from a theoretical standpoint, and not thinking about the real life effects on people at the bottom of the scale, completely misses the point.
Theories don't vote, people do.
Labour will be sending academics to the Red Wall to explain to their ex voters how they’re suffering from false consciousness
So dull.
It's simple — if Brexit does make these voters lives better, they'll continue voting for Con. If it doesn't, they wont. What "Labour academics" say is immaterial, although we all know you're just looking for a bite.
Not at all. Never respond to anything I post ever again and I’ll be happy
Go for it Sunak. Take the heat. It’s the right thing to do.
Personally, I’d go all the way and just tax inheritance as income.
Inheritance tax is iniquitous .....you have been taxed on everything you have earned and then the bastards want you tax you when you are dead.. Fortunately the bastards of which ever Govt it might be won't get a penny of mine.
No, that’s a silly argument, since money circulates and is taxed at multiple points. IHT, in the round, conveys significant social mobility benefits, and the alternative is of course paying more tax when you are alive.
Sounds like Ed Balls an some sort of craptrap like neendogenous growth theory.
You mean post neoclassical endogenous growth theory?
As Heseltine (for once) correctly noted, it wasn’t Brown’s it was all Balls’.
Go for it Sunak. Take the heat. It’s the right thing to do.
Personally, I’d go all the way and just tax inheritance as income.
Inheritance tax is iniquitous .....you have been taxed on everything you have earned and then the bastards want you tax you when you are dead.. Fortunately the bastards of which ever Govt it might be won't get a penny of mine.
No, that’s a silly argument, since money circulates and is taxed at multiple points. IHT, in the round, conveys significant social mobility benefits, and the alternative is of course paying more tax when you are alive.
Sounds like Ed Balls an some sort of craptrap like neendogenous growth theory.
Well, you may know both of those for ‘a fact’ but you would be completely wrong.
There were a number of articles on Cameron from 2002 onwards in the Times and Telegraph suggesting he had what it would take. There was frequent mention of him by other MPs on TV and radio, usually bracketed with Osborne, Johnson and Gove. There was a documentary on Michael Howard in 2004 that mentioned him as a long term leadership contender. Gossip in the PCP suggested he and Gove might be realistic leadership contenders for a 2009 leadership election should Labour have won again.
So if you didn’t know this it was because you weren’t paying attention.
As it happens, he bobbed up much more quickly than expected, partly through his own gambling instincts, partly through that speech and partly because David Davis turned in such a dismal performance. But that doesn’t mean he emerged from nowhere.
Similarly, Blair was tipped as a potential leader from the mid-1980s onwards, although he was thought to be behind Brown in the Buggins Turn stakes.
And I say again, I don’t see or hear the same commentary about any current Labour MP.
Thought you were right, so wanted to wanted to find some 2002/3 stories with DaveC future leader mentions..
I searched google for "David Cameron" from 1/1/2002 to 1/1/2004 and found an article he wrote in the Guardian about Macedonia and an Oxford Mail story about local MP visiting a school. (Also, don't think he was the 18yo student David Cameron who set fire to his friend dressed as a mummy in toilet paper https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/student-set-fire-paper-mummy-2491691 )
Extending my search to 2004 there was this from August https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-314340/Love-Tory-Conservatives-golden-girl-married-man.html Which is a story about his stepfather-in-law having an affair with his boss's political secretary who happens to be his son's godmather. Usual political incest stuff. Says of Cameron "In her role as political adviser, one figure Miss Whetstone has helped promote is David Cameron, 37, the Conservative MP for Witney in Oxfordshire and a happily married father-of-two (with whom she is not involved romantically). Eton-educated Cameron, who is in charge of policy co-ordination for the party, is the stepson-in-law of Viscount Astor, 52, a former government whip and Opposition spokesman in the House of Lords." No potential future leader stuff. Somewhat amusingly followed by this about Boris "Three weeks before publication of his first novel, Seventy Two Virgins, preening Spectator editor and Tory MP Boris Johnson has uncharacteristically come over all modest. For I hear that at the last minute he has cut from the book, which is heavily autobiographical - the hero is a bicycle-riding MP - a number of sex scenes and details of an affair. Why could this be? According to publishing sources, twice married Boris was concerned that readers might take the louche behaviour in the novel too literally."
Again rather amusingly followed by a Boris take.. "Mr Johnson goes down a storm at Tory conference fringes, but his Dulux dog fringe is the main image the public have of him. His appearances on Have I Got News For You have obscured his political talents. Labour MPs are delighted at the idea that he could ever be a contender for leader. "It would be a dream come true if Boris became Tory leader. The man is a joke," one minister said recently."
But nothing else, and I've been through all 13 pages of hits on google for the 3 years..
Am I looking in the wrong place?
Probably. They were mostly oped pieces in the Times and the Telegraph. I don’t think they show up in public searches from that far back.
Edit - the first time I ever heard David Cameron’s name was in 2002. It was in a piece written by I think Rachel Sylvester who was lamenting the fact Duncan Smith’s Shadow cabinet consisted mostly of old, white not very capable people. She suggested a need to promote younger talent, specifically ‘Boris Johnson and the less well known but equally impressive David Cameron, both of whom are potential future leaders.’
I was intrigued enough by the comparison to do some fact finding, but thereafter it was interesting to note how often his name kept cropping up. His rise in 2005 came as no surprise to me.
Voter coalitions are not immutable. It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions.
Yet that’s no guarantee that Labour’s lost voters will then collapse back into its arms. Simply waiting for the latest iteration of the Conservative party to implode might reward Labour, but you’d be a fool to bet on it after the evidence of the last decade.
[Alternatively] the circumstances in which a progressive alliance might make a tangible difference are the circumstances in which Labour is looking like a winner anyway. Which obviously isn’t the case today.
There is no plausible path back to power for Labour that does not involve succeeding in the electoral system as it is by gaining support from diverse groups of voters from around the compass.
Most people in most places want similar things: decent life chances for themselves and their children, reliable public services, a nice place to call home, a sense that opportunities and rewards are distributed fairly and that the communities, country and planet in which they live have a promising future. It should not be impossible for the Labour party to locate a winning electoral coalition. First, though, it needs to start acting as if it is interested in finding one.
"It is highly likely that the Tory electoral coalition will eventually disintegrate under the weight of its own contradictions."
The wish is father to the thought.
It has already secured an 80 (now 82) seat majority whilst peeling off its Europhile wing. That disintegration happened before the last election.
The point being made is that there are potential tensions between the Tories’ old and new supporters, which is fair. A similar coalition fell apart during the later Thatcher and Major years.
And I'm saying that the most obvious fault-line in the Conservatives for decades has already fractured - the Europhiles v the Sceptics. From the inside of the party, I can't see anything remotely close to that San Andreas fault. And we have already had our 8.3 Richter Scale event, prior to 2019. There was some swaying, but the edifice proved surprisingly robust.
So what rupture in our ranks is on the horizon?
Tax rises to pay for COVID, "rocket fuel", and "levelling up" that are primarily levied on the South, for the benefit of the North and the Midlands.
Alternatively, lack of "rocket fuel" or "levelling up" due to lack of money.
I actually think there will be a degree of pragmatism. The Govt. stood behind the workers with furlough payments, to an unprecedented extent. "Levelling up" will have a start, but it will be understood that Covid has meant the advance can't be as rapid as had been hoped at the time of the 2019 general election.
I think the fault lines in other parties are greater. How are they going to pay for their pet projects AND repay the costs of Covid?
I think that's wishful thinking.
Labour was blamed for the effects of the GFC for many years after.
If levelling up doesn't happen to the extent people expect, "cos COVID" isn't going to wash.
I’d bet “levelling up” gets ditched when Boris is kicked out. The new leader will look to coalesce the SE/ld/green/nimby vote into a majority, I recon.
Well, you may know both of those for ‘a fact’ but you would be completely wrong.
There were a number of articles on Cameron from 2002 onwards in the Times and Telegraph suggesting he had what it would take. There was frequent mention of him by other MPs on TV and radio, usually bracketed with Osborne, Johnson and Gove. There was a documentary on Michael Howard in 2004 that mentioned him as a long term leadership contender. Gossip in the PCP suggested he and Gove might be realistic leadership contenders for a 2009 leadership election should Labour have won again.
So if you didn’t know this it was because you weren’t paying attention.
As it happens, he bobbed up much more quickly than expected, partly through his own gambling instincts, partly through that speech and partly because David Davis turned in such a dismal performance. But that doesn’t mean he emerged from nowhere.
Similarly, Blair was tipped as a potential leader from the mid-1980s onwards, although he was thought to be behind Brown in the Buggins Turn stakes.
And I say again, I don’t see or hear the same commentary about any current Labour MP.
Thought you were right, so wanted to wanted to find some 2002/3 stories with DaveC future leader mentions..
I searched google for "David Cameron" from 1/1/2002 to 1/1/2004 and found an article he wrote in the Guardian about Macedonia and an Oxford Mail story about local MP visiting a school. (Also, don't think he was the 18yo student David Cameron who set fire to his friend dressed as a mummy in toilet paper https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/student-set-fire-paper-mummy-2491691 )
Extending my search to 2004 there was this from August https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-314340/Love-Tory-Conservatives-golden-girl-married-man.html Which is a story about his stepfather-in-law having an affair with his boss's political secretary who happens to be his son's godmather. Usual political incest stuff. Says of Cameron "In her role as political adviser, one figure Miss Whetstone has helped promote is David Cameron, 37, the Conservative MP for Witney in Oxfordshire and a happily married father-of-two (with whom she is not involved romantically). Eton-educated Cameron, who is in charge of policy co-ordination for the party, is the stepson-in-law of Viscount Astor, 52, a former government whip and Opposition spokesman in the House of Lords." No potential future leader stuff. Somewhat amusingly followed by this about Boris "Three weeks before publication of his first novel, Seventy Two Virgins, preening Spectator editor and Tory MP Boris Johnson has uncharacteristically come over all modest. For I hear that at the last minute he has cut from the book, which is heavily autobiographical - the hero is a bicycle-riding MP - a number of sex scenes and details of an affair. Why could this be? According to publishing sources, twice married Boris was concerned that readers might take the louche behaviour in the novel too literally."
Again rather amusingly followed by a Boris take.. "Mr Johnson goes down a storm at Tory conference fringes, but his Dulux dog fringe is the main image the public have of him. His appearances on Have I Got News For You have obscured his political talents. Labour MPs are delighted at the idea that he could ever be a contender for leader. "It would be a dream come true if Boris became Tory leader. The man is a joke," one minister said recently."
But nothing else, and I've been through all 13 pages of hits on google for the 3 years..
Am I looking in the wrong place?
Probably. They were mostly oped pieces in the Times and the Telegraph. I don’t think they show up in public searches from that far back.
Edit - the first time I ever heard David Cameron’s name was in 2002. It was in a piece written by I think Rachel Sylvester who was lamenting the fact Duncan Smith’s Shadow cabinet consisted mostly of old, white not very capable people. She suggested a need to promote younger talent, specifically ‘Boris Johnson and the less well known but equally impressive David Cameron, both of whom are potential future leaders.’
I was intrigued enough by the comparison to do some fact finding, but thereafter it was interesting to note how often his name kept cropping up. His rise in 2005 came as no surprise to me.
You should write more betting headers ?
My last tip was Tories - most seats in the Senedd.
I think it is fair to say I have some repair work to do on my reputation...
One thing that annoys me about the current blitz to try and somehow convince the Govt to delay the May 17th reopening (which has switched astonishingly rapidly from the theoretical discussions about June12) is the effective presentation that doing so would come with zero downside, from all the hospitality businesses etc that would probably go bust overnight due to all the additional costs they will have incurred preparing specifically for tomorrow.
And most of them are calling for such a delay whilst hedging their bets, saying we might come to regret it ... or we might not. It’s as if they’re all rushing to get their voices heard now, just to give them the excuse in a month to say “I told you so”.
Kit Yates @Kit_Yates_Maths · 4h No one is suggesting we “live like this for ever”, but we have vaccines to prevent this disease. More time to vaccinate people will undoubtedly save lives. Opening up more in the face of a more transmissible variant risks undermining much of our efforts up to now.
A typical view from the indie SAGE.
No appreciation of the economic ruin or the mental health crisis that keeping closed down will deliver. Nor seemingly any appreciation that people have mainly had enough and are meeting anyway in their own homes which are probably not as covid safe (whatever that actually means) than a well run cafe or bar.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
The issue is that even with apprenticeship levys most companies want the finished product now. They also don't want to pay people the market rate unless they have to.
His issue is that the people he is looking for simply don't exist and he isn't willing to spend the time required to train them up (hint I suspect you could make that a profit centre in it's own right by training others how to do it).
Personally I would prefer to train people up and then pay them enough so that they don't look elsewhere.
I preferred untrained so I didn’t have to row back the stuff others did. Plus I didn’t have the “I know this shite” attitude and got people who wanted to learn new stuff.
The problem with that is that it is essentially indirect age discrimination, and doesn't help people who want to retrain. You're basically wanting fresh young people, rather than say, a 40 year old who has been made redundant?
Nope. Someone who had training in other fields and wanted to go into mine were people who would take a leap.
And I'm saying that the most obvious fault-line in the Conservatives for decades has already fractured - the Europhiles v the Sceptics. From the inside of the party, I can't see anything remotely close to that San Andreas fault. And we have already had our 8.3 Richter Scale event, prior to 2019. There was some swaying, but the edifice proved surprisingly robust.
So what rupture in our ranks is on the horizon?
The Conservative Party has been remarkably adept in learning one of the golden rules of politics:
"If you don't hang together, you'll hang separately".
That said, there was more than one disgruntled Councillor or Council leader who took a pop at the "levelling up" agenda after losing seats claiming the shift of spending toward the north was leaving the south behind. That, perhaps tied with the prevalent anti-development seat, cost the Conservatives seats in some areas.
Now, the "South" is as absurd a generalisation as the "North", at least geographically. I've not forgotten the Conservative win in Cornwall, the gains in places like Camborne, Redruth, St Austell and Liskeard, towns which, I would argue, have greater socio-economic similarity with towns in northern England than they do with many other parts of the south. These are all towns with issues of under-investment and unemployment, towns which traditionally felt "left behind" and areas who have taken on board Boris Johnson's "promises" of spending.
Perhaps we can think of Cornwall in the same way the Americans considered Wisconsin - a state which used to be quite liberal but where economic and social reality has opened the door for a more populist offering.
It's now up to Johnson and the Government to deliver - Covid has delayed that but that's an excuse which will only cut so much ice.
One thing that annoys me about the current blitz to try and somehow convince the Govt to delay the May 17th reopening (which has switched astonishingly rapidly from the theoretical discussions about June12) is the effective presentation that doing so would come with zero downside, from all the hospitality businesses etc that would probably go bust overnight due to all the additional costs they will have incurred preparing specifically for tomorrow.
And most of them are calling for such a delay whilst hedging their bets, saying we might come to regret it ... or we might not. It’s as if they’re all rushing to get their voices heard now, just to give them the excuse in a month to say “I told you so”.
Kit Yates @Kit_Yates_Maths · 4h No one is suggesting we “live like this for ever”, but we have vaccines to prevent this disease. More time to vaccinate people will undoubtedly save lives. Opening up more in the face of a more transmissible variant risks undermining much of our efforts up to now.
A typical view from the indie SAGE.
No appreciation of the economic ruin or the mental health crisis that keeping closed down will deliver. Nor seemingly any appreciation that people have mainly had enough and are meeting anyway in their own homes which are probably not as covid safe (whatever that actually means) than a well run cafe or bar.
I played a season of football with Kit Yates.
that's all I have to say about this post.
Funny how I think some of the worse numbers coming out of “the models” contain variables involving quite high levels of vaccine escape. The numbers whichh are then conveniently used as an argument for extension of restrictions to “get more people vaccinated”!
Utterly circular! Create a problem based on assuming vaccines not working, chuck it all in the mixer and advocate a solution that assumes they do!
Fascinating to read the dismantling of David Cameron's reputation.
The same will happen to Boris Johnson one day and we will be shocked as to what actually went on and how the country was governed during the worst public health crisis for a generation.
"Life at the Court of Emperor Boris" will be a best seller whoever and whenever it is written.
David Cameron was Michael Howard's big idea. Howard effectively named Cameron as his chosen successor because he realised David Davis wouldn't be able to capture the LD and disillusioned Labour voters the Conservatives needed after three heavy GE defeats.
Howard knew Cameron could "lovebomb" the LDs and was a telegenic attractive alternative to Brown (not to Blair). Indeed, the decline of the LDs began the moment Cameron became Conservative leader. Ashdown and Kennedy had been able to oversee the growth of the party from the mid-90s once the Conservatives went into their pre-97 death spiral and for years after but with Cameron's election, the strong signal was the Conservatives had ended their period of navel gazing and were serious about regaining power.
Kennedy had no answer to Cameron and in the end the party decided imitation was the sincerest form of flattery and elected the one man who could out-Cameron Cameron and that turned out to be a disaster.
Had Davis won in 2005, history would have been very different.
It's odd to see the vilification of Cameron now - at the time, he was considered a political genius and let's not forget not only did he get the Conservatives back into power, he won a majority for the first time in 23 years and smashed the party's principal opponents.
Well historically, it was the job of businesses to train employees to have the skills that are needed. Why is this now being completely and utterly palmed off on the state?
If you have 14 open roles and nobody is applying, either the salary is too low or you need to accept 'under-skilled' but motivated people. This, surely, is basic business stuff.
I have no sympathy. Yes the government should help employees retrain, and of course the government is doing this, but that doesn't remove responsibility from businesses.
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the business owners of PB.
One of the many things I find deeply bewildering about the current Labour party is that they couldn't see that as clearly as those living in the former red wall seats did. The SM created many excellent opportunities for the highly skilled and highly qualified professionals both in terms of what they could earn and the relative cost of services that they wished to buy but it was very, very rough on those who were lower skilled or unskilled.
Yep. The "Polish plumber" meant very different things to the UK's affluent middle class and working class British plumbers.
And the plumber was a skilled tradesman. Imagine the lot of the unskilled or semi-skilled worker, under a system of almost unlimited unskilled immigration.
Polish plumbers were apparently echoing the same complaints of their English counterparts when the even cheaper Romanian plumbers entered.
Until a Labour leader can stand up to the professional, educated wing of the party and point out the fact that immigration is not an unalloyed good for those whose wages and services it puts under pressure, it will find it hard to regain those WWC votes. Quite frankly, how anyone thinks that Andy Burnham is going to deliver a more acceptable line on this given his track record is a mystery.
Over 1000 years of British history, the periods when the lot of those at the bottom of the heap has got better has been when demographic and other forces have constrained the supply of labour, thereby pushing up wages. It has been utterly bizarre to see enthusiasts for immigration trying to simply wish this relationship away. There are arguments for immigration, but they don't relate to the economic interests of those selling their labour and skills.
I would have thought that organised labour, in the guise of trades unions, played a pretty significant role in improving the lot of those at the bottom of the heap, and pushing up wages in many sectors of the economy, during much of the 20th Century.
But they can only do so where Labour is scarce, or ar least finite.
And I'm saying that the most obvious fault-line in the Conservatives for decades has already fractured - the Europhiles v the Sceptics. From the inside of the party, I can't see anything remotely close to that San Andreas fault. And we have already had our 8.3 Richter Scale event, prior to 2019. There was some swaying, but the edifice proved surprisingly robust.
So what rupture in our ranks is on the horizon?
The Conservative Party has been remarkably adept in learning one of the golden rules of politics:
"If you don't hang together, you'll hang separately".
That said, there was more than one disgruntled Councillor or Council leader who took a pop at the "levelling up" agenda after losing seats claiming the shift of spending toward the north was leaving the south behind. That, perhaps tied with the prevalent anti-development seat, cost the Conservatives seats in some areas.
Now, the "South" is as absurd a generalisation as the "North", at least geographically. I've not forgotten the Conservative win in Cornwall, the gains in places like Camborne, Redruth, St Austell and Liskeard, towns which, I would argue, have greater socio-economic similarity with towns in northern England than they do with many other parts of the south. These are all towns with issues of under-investment and unemployment, towns which traditionally felt "left behind" and areas who have taken on board Boris Johnson's "promises" of spending.
Perhaps we can think of Cornwall in the same way the Americans considered Wisconsin - a state which used to be quite liberal but where economic and social reality has opened the door for a more populist offering.
It's now up to Johnson and the Government to deliver - Covid has delayed that but that's an excuse which will only cut so much ice.
The remain "problem" for Labour won't last forever, but there is a perception that most Labour MPs (along with some Tories and the Lib Dems) did everything possible to stop Brexit and given half a chance they would do so again. So isn't being on the Remain side as such, it is perceived that they were trying to overturn the democratic mandate which really pisses off the Red Wall types.
So any Labour MP who was in parliament during the 2016-2019 period is going to be tarred with that brush. As with the Tories, it took getting Cameron coming into parliament in 2001 to get them moving, as he was able to position himself as a clean break from the Thatcher and Major led governments.
Actually I would disagree with you Francis, I think Labour's problems are terminal and they have been exacerbated by having four unsuitable leaders in a row. If you look back, this really does feel like the death of the Liberals in the 1920s. Hell, there is even the similarity of a major shock event (WW1 / Covid) accelerating the process.
Labour's situation can only be terminal if there's a replacement. Otherwise they remain the only viable opposition. The Liberals were replaced because of the rise of the Labour Party.
Who's replacing Labour? Unlikely to be the Greens ultimately because they're even more woke than the Labour Party.
I think a fissure. Labour's WWC vote continues to peel off to the Tories. In the urban areas, the Greens are the natural successors to the urban, university educated, professional Labour vote. Sheffield and Bristol are harbingers in that regards.
One thing that will probably help Labour is the stickiness of the Muslim vote in certain urban areas. Bristol and Sheffield actually have quite low percentages in that regards, certainly compared with Manchester and Birmingham (Liverpool is also very low but has specific factors why it will probably stay Labour longer; same for Newcastle).
I have often wondered how long it will take for a specifically Muslim party to gain traction in the U.K. if and when it happens then Labour are totally fucked. Unless the two main branches of Islam simply can’t get along in a single U.K. party.
I also agree with TSE things could get difficult for the government if they extended the lockdown beyond June, losing voters to Reform UK in the process. If as was muted last week, Sunak raises inheritance tax to cut the deficit that would go down like a lead balloon with the Tory core vote in the Home Counties too
An English(wo)man's home, is (her)his castle, so don't **** with inheritance tax, seems to be political wisdom best not ignored.
I have sympathy with Starmer. Covid is like a war. It is difficult to criticise the government at the moment.
However, the India travel fiasco is an open goal. Instead of putting the ball in the back of the net, Starmer is minded to backpass the ball the entire length of the field to his own keeper.
There is a morbid fear - shared by all parties - of seeming racist in applying travel bans with the sub-Continent. "Better to allow in the variant than, you know, have shit flung at us for being anti-BAME....."
Since HMG did red-list Pakistan and Bangladesh but not India, it is unlikely that anti-anti-BAMEness was a consideration.
I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.
Not really true now, the Socialists are in power in Spain, the liberal left En Marche are in power in France, the centre left are in power in Italy and in Germany the Greens lead some current national polls
The Greens lead some national polls in Germany, but they're still polling less than the UK Labour Party.
The SPD though are in power as the junior party in the German government, the UK Labour Party is currently the only main liberal left or centre left party out of power in any G7 nation outside Japan when you also consider the Democrats are back in power in the US too and Trudeau's Liberals are in power in Canada as well
Bit of a stretch though to describe the centre left as being "in power in Italy" in your previous post, when the 2 biggest parties in the government (M5S and Lega) are not centre left.
Also not sure if En Marche counts as "liberal left".
Probably fair to say Labour is polling better than many other centre-left parties in Europe, but this is surely because of the 2ish party system in the UK.
M5S are populist, the main Italian centre left party, the Democratic Party are in power with M5S, Lega Nord have now joined the government but it excludes Salvini's rightwing allies Brothers of Italy who are the largest opposition party.
En Marche is the main Italian liberal centre left party in France against Le Pen's Party and Les Republicains (Macron was of course Hollande's finance minister in his Socialist government).
Labour may be polling a bit better than some but then the centre right in Europe is also polling far worse than the Tories across the board
Well, yes to the last point - also generally a consequence of the electoral system, I would have thought. If you look at the last several European Parliament elections, where people in the UK had a better chance of voting for the party they most agree with rather than one of the 2 parties with any chance of winning (and which were held on similar dates to other European countries) Conservative and Labour have done similarly (or worse) than equivalent parties in the rest of Europe.
The equivalent party in France to the British Labour Party is surely the PS. En Marche would be Change UK if it had been more successful.
Comments
Which was a little surprising given they had spent the whole autumn telling us there was almost no transmission in schools...
It's simple — if Brexit does make these voters lives better, they'll continue voting for Con. If it doesn't, they wont. What "Labour academics" say is immaterial, although we all know you're just looking for a bite.
I have literally no idea where you're looking, as ...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/series/davidcamerondiaries
he has a Guardian column - the last one (April 2004) is a bit on the nose.
In 2003, there's an article "Meet the Tories Blair and Brown"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/nov/06/conservatives.uk
October 2004 interview, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/oct/04/uk.interviews
and this is me just looking in the Guardian between 2002 and 2004 for five minutes.
As Heseltine (for once) correctly noted, it wasn’t Brown’s it was all Balls’.
I think it is fair to say I have some repair work to do on my reputation...
that's all I have to say about this post.
"If you don't hang together, you'll hang separately".
That said, there was more than one disgruntled Councillor or Council leader who took a pop at the "levelling up" agenda after losing seats claiming the shift of spending toward the north was leaving the south behind. That, perhaps tied with the prevalent anti-development seat, cost the Conservatives seats in some areas.
Now, the "South" is as absurd a generalisation as the "North", at least geographically. I've not forgotten the Conservative win in Cornwall, the gains in places like Camborne, Redruth, St Austell and Liskeard, towns which, I would argue, have greater socio-economic similarity with towns in northern England than they do with many other parts of the south. These are all towns with issues of under-investment and unemployment, towns which traditionally felt "left behind" and areas who have taken on board Boris Johnson's "promises" of spending.
Perhaps we can think of Cornwall in the same way the Americans considered Wisconsin - a state which used to be quite liberal but where economic and social reality has opened the door for a more populist offering.
It's now up to Johnson and the Government to deliver - Covid has delayed that but that's an excuse which will only cut so much ice.
NEW THREAD
Utterly circular! Create a problem based on assuming vaccines not working, chuck it all in the mixer and advocate a solution that assumes they do!
The same will happen to Boris Johnson one day and we will be shocked as to what actually went on and how the country was governed during the worst public health crisis for a generation.
"Life at the Court of Emperor Boris" will be a best seller whoever and whenever it is written.
David Cameron was Michael Howard's big idea. Howard effectively named Cameron as his chosen successor because he realised David Davis wouldn't be able to capture the LD and disillusioned Labour voters the Conservatives needed after three heavy GE defeats.
Howard knew Cameron could "lovebomb" the LDs and was a telegenic attractive alternative to Brown (not to Blair). Indeed, the decline of the LDs began the moment Cameron became Conservative leader. Ashdown and Kennedy had been able to oversee the growth of the party from the mid-90s once the Conservatives went into their pre-97 death spiral and for years after but with Cameron's election, the strong signal was the Conservatives had ended their period of navel gazing and were serious about regaining power.
Kennedy had no answer to Cameron and in the end the party decided imitation was the sincerest form of flattery and elected the one man who could out-Cameron Cameron and that turned out to be a disaster.
Had Davis won in 2005, history would have been very different.
It's odd to see the vilification of Cameron now - at the time, he was considered a political genius and let's not forget not only did he get the Conservatives back into power, he won a majority for the first time in 23 years and smashed the party's principal opponents.
None of that matters now.
Unless the two main branches of Islam simply can’t get along in a single U.K. party.
The equivalent party in France to the British Labour Party is surely the PS. En Marche would be Change UK if it had been more successful.